NAEP READING

CONTENTS

NAEP in a Nutshell . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2

The NAEP 1998 Reading Assessment . . . . . . . 2

Grade 4 Sample Questions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3

Grade 8 Sample Questions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4

Grade 12 Sample Questions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5

National Results . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6

School & Home Factors Related to Reading . . 10

State Results . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12

Other Publications and Related Materials . . . 16

NATIONAL CENTER FOR EDUCATION STATISTICS

NCES 1999-479

Office of Educational Research and Improvement

U.S. Department of Education

America’s children are its greatest resource. Educators, parents, and concerned citizens want to provide young people with the academic opportunities to compete and succeed in a challenging world. One resource

that can help inform the public about the academic preparedness of

America’s youth is the National Assessment of Educational Progress

(NAEP), often referred to as “the Nation’s Report Card.”

In 1998, the National Center for Education Statistics (NCES)

administered the NAEP reading assessment to a national sample of

students at grades 4, 8, and 12, and to state samples of students at grades

4 and 8. The results of this assessment present a broad view of how

America’s students are achieving in reading — one of the most important

sets of skills that young people acquire and develop throughout their

lives. Because the assessment administered in 1998 shared a common set

of reading passages and comprehension questions with assessments given

in 1992 and 1994, it is possible to use NAEP results to chart the progress

American students have made in reading since 1992.

This publication provides highlights from the 1998 NAEP reading

assessment, describing its content, its major findings at the national and

state levels, and students’ experiences at school and at home that support achievement in reading.

The NAEP 1998 Reading Report Card
The NAEP 1998 Reading Assessment

Sample Texts, Questions, and Student Responses

from the NAEP 1998 Reading Assessment

The NAEP reading framework developed by the National Assessment Governing Board describes

reading as an interactive process. To comprehend what is being read, the reader must interact with the

written word, and interpret ideas presented in the reading material based, in part, upon the reader’s

knowledge and purpose for reading. The NAEP reading assessment included three types of reading

material that represent different purposes for reading: reading for literary experience, reading to gain

information, and reading to perform a task.

The materials that were used in the NAEP reading assessment were taken from sources that are

typically available to students, such as collections of stories, children’s or youth magazines, or informational books. These materials were presented in their original formats in the test booklets so as

to reproduce, as much as possible, an “authentic” reading experience. By

giving students different types of reading materials, NAEP was able to

provide a measure of reading performance that reflects students’ typical

reading experiences both in and out of school.

To measure students’ comprehension of the reading materials

included in the assessment, students responded to both multiple-choice and

open-ended questions. At all three grades, at least half of the questions required students to provide their own written responses, so that they could

explain and support their understanding.

The national results of the NAEP 1998 reading

assessment are presented on pages 6 to 11 of this

publication, and the state results are summarized on pages 12 to 15. The following three

pages present sample questions and responses

from the assessment. For each grade (4, 8, and

12), three sample questions have been selected

to demonstrate how reading comprehension

was assessed. The reading passages that accompany these sets of questions are depicted at the

top of each page. They can be found in their

entirety in the NAEP 1998 Reading Report Card

for the Nation and the States.

A combination of multiple-choice and

open-ended questions is shown. The openended questions are referred to as “constructed-response” questions because they

require students to develop their own

responses rather than to select a response from

a list of possible answers, as they do with

multiple-choice questions. Two types of

constructed-response questions were included

in the NAEP reading assessment and are

presented on these pages: short constructed

response and extended constructed response.

The correct answer for each multiplechoice question shown is indicated with a (★).

For each constructed-response question

shown, both a brief summary of the criteria

used for rating the question and the rating

assigned to the sample response are presented.

It should be noted that the answers students

provided to the constructed-response questions were rated based only on their understanding of the text. Errors in spelling and

grammar did not affect students’ ratings.

For all sample questions —multiple choice

or constructed response —the overall percentage of students who responded successfully is

shown. In addition, the percentage of students

who responded successfully within the Basic,

Proficient, and Advanced achievement levels is

presented in the tables that accompany each

sample question. These percentages indicate

how difficult students found the questions. The

higher the percentage of students answering a

question successfully, the easier it was for

students to answer the question.

NAEP IN A NUTSHELL

Q: WHAT IS NAEP?

A: The National Assessment of Educational Progress

(NAEP) is the nation’s only ongoing assessment of what

students know and can do in various subject areas. A

project of the National Center for Education Statistics

within the U.S. Department of Education, NAEP has

assessed many academic subjects since its inception in

1969, including mathematics, science, reading, writing,

world geography, U.S. history, civics, social studies, and

the arts.

Decisions about which subject areas are assessed

and how they are assessed are made by the National

Assessment Governing Board (NAGB), an independent

agency that oversees NAEP. With the assistance of educators, parents, public leaders, and concerned citizens,

NAGB develops the “framework” or guidelines that

determine how a subject area will be assessed. In addition, NAGB sets achievement levels, or student performance standards, for the three grades assessed – 4, 8,

and 12.

Q: HOW IS STUDENT PERFORMANCE

REPORTED?

A: The results of student performance on the NAEP

assessment are reported for various groups of students

(for example, fourth-grade female students) and for

students who took the assessment in different years

(1992, 1994, and 1998). The differences in performance

between groups of students both within and across

assessment years that are discussed in this publication

are statistically significant.

Student performance is described in two ways:

1) scale scores, and 2) achievement levels.

Scale Scores

Student performance is reported as an average score

based on the NAEP reading scale that ranges from 0 to

500. The average scale score reflects the overall reading

performance of a particular group of students.

Achievement Levels

Student reading performance is also reported in terms

of three achievement levels: Basic, Proficient, and

Advanced. Results based on achievement levels are

expressed in terms of the percentage of students who

attained each level. The three achievement levels are

defined as follows:

Basic: This level denotes partial mastery of prerequisite

knowledge and skills that are fundamental for proficient

work at each grade.

Proficient: This level represents solid academic performance for each grade assessed. Students reaching this

level have demonstrated competency over challenging

subject matter, including subject-matter knowledge,

application of such knowledge to real-world situations,

and analytical skills appropriate to the subject matter.

Advanced: This level signifies superior performance.

Q: HOW SHOULD NAEP ACHIEVEMENT

LEVELS BE INTERPRETED?

A: The achievement levels are performance standards,

adopted by NAGB as part of its statutory responsibilities.

The levels are collective judgments of what students

should know and be able to do for each grade tested.

They are based on recommendations by broadly representative panels of classroom teachers, education

specialists, and members of the general public.

As provided by law, the Commissioner of Education

Statistics, upon review of a congressionally mandated

evaluation of NAEP, has determined that the achievement levels are to be considered developmental and

should be interpreted and used with caution. However,

both the Commissioner and NAGB believe these performance standards are useful for understanding trends in

student achievement. They have been widely used by

national and state officials, including the National

Education Goals Panel, as a common yardstick of

academic performance.

NOTE: For reasons of confidentiality, the students shown

in the photographs for this report are not NAEP reading

assessment participants.

2
The following three fourth-grade questions were among those presented to students after they had read an

informative article entitled “BLUE CRABS.” The article described the experience of catching blue crabs. The

author incorporated information about the crabs’ appearance, habitats, and survival techniques with a description of techniques for catching them.

Short Constructed-Response Question

Why does a blue crab hide after molting?

Responses to this question were rated as

Unacceptable or Acceptable.

 Responses rated Acceptable demonstrated

understanding of explicitly stated information by

indicating that blue crabs are vulnerable to attack

after molting because they no longer have their

protective external skeleton.

69% of all 4th graders received a rating

of “Acceptable.”*

Sample “Acceptable” Response

Extended Constructed-Response Question

Write a paragraph telling the major

things you learned about blue crabs.

Responses to this question were rated as Unsatisfactory, Partial, Essential, or Extensive.

Responses rated Essential went beyond simple

recall of isolated facts, and demonstrated restricted

but appropriate understanding of one or two of

the major characteristics of blue crabs as presented

in the article.

Responses rated Extensive demonstrated a

more thorough understanding of the article by

providing substantial information on more than

two of the major characteristics of blue crabs as

presented in the article.

43% of all 4th graders received a rating

of “Essential“ or better.*

Sample ”Extensive” Response

Grade 4

Sample Questions and Responses

Multiple-Choice Question

The author of the article helps you to

learn about blue crabs by

A. explaining why they are endangered species

B. comparing them to other arthropods

C. discussing their place in the food chain

D. providing details about their unique

characteristics

56% of all 4th graders answered

this question correctly.*

Percentage of students at each achievement

level who answered correctly

Basic Proficient Advanced

57% 79% 94%

* The percentage of all fourth graders includes those who were

 below Basic.

SOURCE: National Center for Education Statistics, National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP), Reading Assessment.

3

Sample ”Essential” Response

Percentage of students at each achievement level

who received a rating of “Acceptable“

Basic Proficient Advanced

73% 88% 94%

* The percentage of all fourth graders includes those who were

 below Basic.

Percentage of students at each achievement level

who received a rating of “Essential“ or better

Basic Proficient Advanced

44% 66% 82%

* The percentage of all fourth graders includes those who were

 below Basic.

★
Grade 8

Sample Questions and Responses

The following three eighth-grade questions were among those presented to students after they had read a literary

passage entitled “GARY SOTO: A FIRE IN MY HANDS.” The passage described the life and work of the Mexican

American poet, Gary Soto. The passage contained entire poems and excerpts of Soto’s work within the context of

his life.

Sample “Acceptable” Response

Multiple-Choice Question

In the poem “Finding a Lucky Number,“

Gary Soto contrasts

A. dogs and squirrels

B. present youth and future aging

C. Indian summer and the coming year

D. eating candy and a healthy diet

Sample “Extensive” Response

4

SOURCE: National Center for Education Statistics, National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP), Reading Assessment.

Sample “Essential” Response

60% of all 8th graders answered this

question correctly.*

Percentage of students at each achievement level

who answered correctly

Basic Proficient Advanced

56% 80% ◆

* The percentage of all eighth graders includes those who were

 below Basic.

◆ Too few eighth graders reached the Advanced level to report the

 results for this question.

★

Percentage of students at each achievement

level who received a rating of “Acceptable“

Basic Proficient Advanced

55% 73% ◆

* The percentage of all eighth graders includes those who were

 below Basic.

◆ Too few eighth graders reached the Advanced level to report the

 results for this question.

Short Constructed-Response Question

Write down in your own words some

of the images from the poems that linger

in your mind.

Responses to this question were rated as Unacceptable

or Acceptable.

Responses rated Acceptable demonstrated at least

an initial understanding of Soto’s poetry by providing an image or sensory detail from one of

the poems presented in the article.

57% of all 8th graders received a rating

of “Acceptable.”*

Percentage of students at each achievement level

who received a rating of “Essential“ or better

Basic Proficient Advanced

12% 23% ◆

 * The percentage of all eighth graders includes those who were

 below Basic.

 ◆ Too few eighth graders reached the Advanced level to report the

 results for this question.

Extended Constructed-Response Question

If you had to select one poem or excerpt

to use to introduce your friends to Gary

Soto’s work, which selection would you

choose? Explain why you would choose

this selection over the others.

Responses to this question were rated as Unsatisfactory,

Partial, Essential, or Extensive.

Responses rated Essential demonstrated appropriate

understanding of at least one of the poems presented in

the article by selecting a poem and providing an

explanation for choosing that poem.

Responses rated Extensive demonstrated a more

complex understanding of Gary Soto’s poetry by

selecting a poem and providing an explanation that

contrasts the selected poem to the other poems in the

article.

15% of all 8th graders received a rating of

“Essential” or better.*
The following three twelfth-grade questions were among those presented to students after they had an opportunity

to read and review an actual “1040EZ” tax form and the instructions on how to fill it out. After responding to

questions about organization and procedures, the students were asked to complete the actual tax form.

Short Constructed-Response Question

Why is it important that you file your tax

return before April 16?

Responses to this question were rated as Unacceptable

or Acceptable.

Responses rated Acceptable demonstrated

understanding of explicitly stated information by

providing a reason for submitting a tax return before

April 16 as presented in the instructions.

57% of all 12th graders received a rating

of “Acceptable.”*

Sample “Acceptable” Response

Short Constructed-Response Question

List two mistakes that you could make

in completing your tax return that might

delay its processing.

Responses to this question were rated as Unacceptable

or Acceptable.

Responses rated Acceptable demonstrated a critical

evaluation of the tax form directions by providing

two errors that could cause a delay in processing.

37% of all 12th graders received a rating

of “Acceptable.”*

Multiple-Choice Question

The purpose of the tax table is to help

you determine

A. your gross income

B. the amount of tax you owe

C. your net earnings

D. your allowable deductions

Grade 12

Sample Questions and Responses

5

SOURCE: National Center for Education Statistics, National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP), Reading Assessment.

64% of all 12th graders answered

this question correctly.*

Percentage of students at each achievement level

who answered correctly

Basic Proficient Advanced

59% 84% 92%

 * The percentage of all twelfth graders includes those who were

 below Basic.

Percentage of students at each achievement

level who received a rating of “Acceptable“

Basic Proficient Advanced

53% 72% 76%

 * The percentage of all twelfth graders includes those who were

 below Basic.

Percentage of students at each achievement

level who received a rating of “Acceptable“

Basic Proficient Advanced

36% 48% 57%

* The percentage of all twelfth graders includes those who were

 below Basic.

★

Sample “Acceptable” Response
NAEP Reading Assessment

Results for the Nation

The tables and figures in this section portray student achievement in reading

nationwide. These results represent averages for the entire nation and do not

pertain to any individual student or school.

Average Reading Scores for the Nation

6

SOURCE: National Center for Education Statistics, National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP), Reading Assessment.

* Indicates that the 1998 score is significantly different from the 1992 score.

+ Indicates that the 1998 score is significantly different from the 1994 score.

The results of the 1998 reading assessment,

shown in the figure on the right, are mixed.

At the 8th grade, the 1998 average reading

score was higher than the 1992 and 1994

scores. In contrast, although the scores

increased between 1994 and 1998 for students

in grades 4 and 12, these increases showed

no net gains over the 1992 average scores

for reading.

1998 38 62 31 7

1994 40 60 30 7

1992 38 62 29 6

1998 26*+ 74*+ 33*+ 3

1994 30 70 30 3

1992 31 69 29 3

1998 23*+ 77*+ 40+ 6*+

1994 25 75 36 4

1992 20 80 40 4

At or

Below above At or above

Basic Basic Proficient Advanced

Nation

Grade 8

Grade 12

* Indicates that the 1998 percentage is significantly different from the 1992 percentage.

+ Indicates that the 1998 percentage is significantly different from the 1994 percentage.

Grade 4

Percentage of Students at or above the Reading

Achievement Levels for the Nation

Percentage of Students within each Achievement Level Range for the Nation

NOTE: Percentages may not add to 100, or to the exact percentages at or above achievement levels, due to rounding.

Achievement level results for the nation’s fourth-, eighth-,

and twelfth-grade students are presented in the table on

the left. In reading this table, it is necessary to keep in

mind that the levels are cumulative. The percentage of

students who are at or above Basic includes not only

students at the Basic level of performance, but also those

students who attained the Proficient and Advanced levels.

Likewise, the percentage of students at or above Proficient

includes those who attained the Advanced level.

Performance at or above the Proficient level – the

achievement level identified as the standard all students

should reach – was attained by 31 percent of students at

grade 4, 33 percent of students at grade 8, and 40 percent

of students at grade 12.

•At grade 4, there was no significant change in

achievement level performance across the three

assessment years.

•At grade 8, the percentages of students at or above

Basic and at or above Proficient were higher in 1998

than in 1994 and in 1992.

•At grade 12, the achievement level results were

somewhat mixed. Higher percentages of students

attained each level of performance in 1998 than in

1994. In addition, the percentage of students at the

Advanced level was higher in 1998 than in 1992.

Although the percentage of students at or above

Basic increased between 1994 and 1998, it was still

lower than it had been in 1992.

While the previous table shows cumulative percentages of students “at or above”

each achievement level, the figure above shows

the percentage of students within each achievement level range — below Basic, Basic, Proficient, and Advanced.

In this figure, the sections of the bar to

the right of the center vertical line represent the

proportion of students who reached at least the

Proficient level of performance. Correspondingly, the shaded sections of the bar to the left

of the vertical line represent the proportion

of students who were at or below Basic. The

figure makes it clear that a large proportion

of students at each grade did not reach the

Proficient level of reading performance.

0

200

250

300

500

1992 1994 1998

Grade 12 292 287 291+

 Grade 8 260 260 264*+

 Grade 4 217 214 217+

1992 1994 1998

Grade 4

Grade 8

Grade 12

80 60 40 20 0 20 40 60 80

1994

1998

1992

Percentage at or below Basic Percentage at or above Proficient

38 32 24 7

40 31 22 7

38 34 22 6

Grade 4

80 60 40 20 0 20 40 60 80

1994

1998

1992

Percentage at or below Basic Percentage at or above Proficient

26 41 31 3

30 40 27 3

31 40 26 3

Grade 8

80 60 40 20 0 20 40 60 80

1994

1998

1992

Percentage at or below Basic Percentage at or above Proficient

23 37 35 6

25 38 32 4

20 39 36 4

Grade 12
7

SOURCE: National Center for Education Statistics, National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP), Reading Assessment.

Reading Score Percentiles

for the Nation

While scores went up at all three grades for the

nation, increased scores were not seen for all

students. The figures below show scores

at the 10th, 25th, 50th, 75th, and 90th percentiles

for students in grades 4, 8, and 12. Looking at

scores this way shows how students with lower

or higher reading ability performed in 1992,

1994, and 1998. Scores at the 10th and 25th

percentiles represent lower performance, scores

at the 50th percentile represent the middle range

of performance, and scores at the 75th and 90th

percentiles represent higher performance.

The 1994 to 1998 increase

in the average reading score for

fourth graders occurred only

among the lower-performing

students. The scores for students at the 10th and 25th

percentiles increased between

1994 and 1998 to levels that

were comparable to those in

1992 for lower-performing

students. The reading scores for

middle- and high-performing

fourth graders were essentially

unchanged between 1992 and

1998.

Fourth-Grade Reading Score Percentiles

The increase in average

reading scores for eighth graders

was shared by all but the

highest-performing students.

In 1998, the reading scores for

students at the 10th, 25th, 50th,

and 75th percentiles were higher

than the scores in 1992. At the

lower- and middle-performance

levels, the increase occurred

between 1994 and 1998.

The 1994 to 1998 increase in the average

reading score for twelfth graders amounted to a

recovery; returning the 1998 score to the level of

the 1992 score. However, an examination of the

percentile scores reveals a more complex pattern.

Reading scores increased between 1994 and 1998

for the middle- and high-performing students. At

the 90th percentile, the increase amounted to a

real gain over both the 1994 and 1992 scores.

However, at the 50th and 75th percentiles, the

1994 to 1998 gains yielded scores comparable

to those for students at these levels in 1992.

In addition, the net improvement among the

highest-performing twelfth graders was offset

by a 1992 to 1998 drop in the reading scores

of students with the lowest performance.

Eighth-Grade Reading Score Percentiles

* Indicates that the 1998 score is significantly different from the 1992 score.

+ Indicates that the 1998 score is significantly different from the 1994 score.

Twelfth-Grade Reading Score Percentiles

* Indicates that the 1998 score is significantly different from the 1992 score.

+ Indicates that the 1998 score is significantly different from the 1994 score.

+ Indicates that the 1998 score is significantly different from the 1994 score.

0

200

250

300

500

1992 1994 1998

90th percentile 261 263 263

75th percentile 242 243 244

50th percentile 219 219 220

25th percentile 194 189 193+

10th percentile 170 159 167+

1992 1994 1998

10th percentile

25th percentile

50th percentile

75th percentile

90th percentile

0

200

250

300

500

1992 1994 1998

90th percentile 305 305 305

75th percentile 285 286 288*

50th percentile 262 262 267*+

25th percentile 237 236 242*+

10th percentile 213 211 217*+

1992 1994 1998

10th percentile

50th percentile

25th percentile

90th percentile

75th percentile

0

200

250

300

500

1992 1994 1998

90th percentile 333 332 337*+

75th percentile 315 313 317+

50th percentile 294 290 293+

25th percentile 271 264 268

10th percentile 249 239 242*

1992 1994 1998

10th percentile

50th percentile

25th percentile

90th percentile

75th percentile
8

SOURCE: National Center for Education Statistics, National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP), Reading Assessment.

0

200

250

300

500 1992 1994 1998

1992 1994 1998

Grade 12 298 294 298+

 Grade 8 267 268 272*+

 Grade 4 225 224 227

Grade 4

Grade 8

Grade 12

White

0

200

250

300

500

1992 1994 1998

Grade 12 278 270 275+

 Grade 8 241 240 244

 Grade 4 201 191 196

Grade 4

Grade 8

Grade 12

1992 1994 1998

Hispanic

Average Reading Scores by Race/Ethnicity

* Indicates that the 1998 score is significantly different from the 1992 score.

+ Indicates that the 1998 score is significantly different from the 1994 score.

Reading Performance by

Racial/Ethnic Subgroups

The figure below shows average reading

scores in 1992, 1994, and 1998 for students within three different racial/ethnic

subgroups: White, Black, and Hispanic.

Average scores for Asian/Pacific Islander

and American Indian students are

included in the NAEP 1998 Reading

Report Card for the Nation and the States.

They are not presented here because in

1998 there were no significant changes at

any grade since 1992 or 1994 in average

scores for these students.

1992 1994 1998

Grade 12 273 265 270

 Grade 8 238 237 243*+

 Grade 4 193 187 194+

0

200

250

300

500

Grade 4

Grade 8

Grade 12

1992 1994 1998

Black

In 1998, White and Asian fourthgrade students outscored their Black,

Hispanic, and American Indian peers.

American Indian students also scored

higher than Black students at grade 4.

Among eighth graders, White and Asian

students again scored higher than their

Black, Hispanic, and American Indian

peers. At grade 12, White students had

higher scores than Black, Hispanic, and

American Indian students. Asian students

outscored their Black and Hispanic peers,

and Hispanic students had higher scores

than Black students.

• At grade 4, the average score for

Black students went up between

1994 and 1998.

• At grade 8, the average scores for

both White and Black students in

1998 were higher than in 1994

and 1992.

• At grade 12, the average scores for

both White and Hispanic students

went up between 1994 and 1998.

50

40

30

20

10

0 Male Female

Percentage of Students at or above the

Proficient Achievement Level by Gender 1992

1994

1998

* Indicates that the 1998 percentage is significantly different from the 1992 percentage.

+ Indicates that the 1998 percentage is significantly different from the 1994 percentage.

50

40

30

20

10

0 Male Female

50

40

30

20

10

0 Male Female

25 26

28 32 34 33

23 23

35 36

*

40

*+

27

34

29

46 43

32

+

48

Grade 4 Grade 8 Grade 12

The figure on the left shows the

percentages of males and females in grades 4,

8, and 12 who were at or above the Proficient level. At each grade, one third or fewer

of males reached or exceeded this level – 28

percent at grade 4, 27 percent at grade 8,

and 32 percent at grade 12. In comparison,

one third or more of females in each grade

were at or above Proficient – 33 percent at

grade 4, 40 percent at grade 8, and 48

percent at grade 12.

For both males and females at grade 8

there were gains in the percentage of

students at or above Proficient. In 1998, the

percentage of male eighth graders was higher

than in 1994 and in 1992, and the percentage

of female students was higher than in 1992.

Among female twelfth graders, a higher

percentage of students were at or above

Proficient in 1998 than in 1994.

Average Reading Scores by Gender Reading Performance of

Male and Female Students

The figure on the right shows average reading

scores for male and female students in 1992, 1994, and

1998. At all three grades, females did better than males

in reading. The results are generally positive, showing

that most students are making gains in reading.

• At grade 4, the average score for male students

went up between 1994 and 1998; however,

there was no change in the average score for

female students.

• At grade 8, the average scores for both male

and female students in 1998 were higher than

in 1994 and in 1992.

• At grade 12, the average score for female

students went up between 1994 and 1998. The

apparent gain between 1994 and 1998 for male

twelfth graders was not significant, and their

average score in 1998 remained lower than it

was in 1992.

* Indicates that the 1998 score is significantly different from the 1992 score.

+ Indicates that the 1998 score is significantly different from the 1994 score.

 1992 1994 1998

Grade 12 287 280 283 *

Grade 8 254 252 257 *+

Grade 4 213 209 214 +

0

200

250

300

500

Grade 4

Grade 8

Grade 12

1992 1994 1998

Male

1992 1994 1998

Grade 12 297 294 298+

Grade 8 267 267 270*+

Grade 4 221 220 220

0

200

250

300

500 1992 1994 1998

Female

Grade 4

Grade 8

Grade 12
9

SOURCE: National Center for Education Statistics, National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP), Reading Assessment.

50

40

30

20

10

0

White Black

Percentage of Students at or above the

Proficient Achievement Level by Race/Ethnicity

1992

1994

1998

+ Indicates that the 1998 percentage is significantly different from the 1994 percentage.

10

13

Hispanic

16 13

50

40

30

20

10

0

White Black

13

43

26

Hispanic

24

20

50

40

30

20

10

0

White Black

36

+

41

9 9

36

12

15

Hispanic

14 14

47

+

47

9

35

39 37

18 18

Grade 4 Grade 8 Grade 12

The figure above shows the percentages of students in three racial/ethnic

groups (White, Black, and Hispanic) in

grades 4, 8, and 12 who performed at or

above the Proficient level. Across the three

grades in 1998, between 39 and 47 percent

of White students were at or above the

Proficient level. In comparison, 10 to 18

percent of Black students and 13 to 26

percent of Hispanic students reached or

exceeded this level of performance.

The only significant increases seen

in the percentages of students at or above

the Proficient level in any racial/ethnic

group were for White students at grades 8

and 12 between 1994 and 1998.

1992 1994 1998

Grade 12 290 286 289 +

Grade 8 258 257 261 *+

Grade 4 215 212 215

0

200

250

300

500 1992 1994 1998

Grade 4

Grade 8

Grade 12

Public

1992 1994 1998

Grade 12 308 301 303

Grade 8 278 279 281

Grade 4 232 231 233

0

200

250

300

500 1992 1994 1998

Grade 4

Grade 8

Grade 12

Nonpublic

Average Reading Scores by Type of School

* Indicates that the 1998 score is significantly different from the 1992 score.

+ Indicates that the 1998 score is significantly different from the 1994 score.

60

50

40

30

20

10

0 Public Nonpublic

Percentage of Students at or above the

Proficient Achievement Level by Type of School 1992

1994

1998

* Indicates that the 1998 percentage is significantly different from the 1992 percentage.

+ Indicates that the 1998 percentage is significantly different from the 1994 percentage.

60

50

40

30

20

10

0 Public Nonpublic

60

50

40

30

20

10

0 Public Nonpublic

29

45 43

54

*+

31

35

60

52

39

54

Grade 4 Grade 8 Grade 12

48 49

27 27

46

27 28

37

Reading Performance

by Type of School

The figure on the right shows average

reading scores in 1992, 1994, and 1998 for

students attending two types of schools:

public and nonpublic. Included among

nonpublic school students are those who

attended Catholic schools and those who

attended other nonpublic schools. For all

three grades in 1998, students in nonpublic

schools had higher reading scores than their

peers in public schools. It should be noted

that differences between the performance

of students in public and nonpublic schools

may be due to a variety of factors such as

student selection and parental involvement.

In 1998, scores for students in

nonpublic schools were not significantly

different from scores in 1994 and in 1992.

The 1998 score for fourth graders in public

schools also was not significantly different

from those in the previous two assessments.

However, there were some gains for eighth

and twelfth graders in public schools.

• At grade 8, the average score for public

school students in 1998 was higher than in

1994 and in 1992.

The figure above shows the percentages of

students in public and nonpublic schools in

grades 4, 8, and 12 who performed at or

above the Proficient level. At each grade,

a higher percentage of nonpublic school

students reached or exceeded this level

of performance than did public school

students. Across the three grades in 1998,

between 46 and 54 percent of nonpublic

• At grade 12, the average score for public

school students went up between 1994

and 1998.

school students were at or above Proficient.

In comparison, 29 to 39 percent of public

school students were at or above this level.

The only significant increase seen in the

percentages of students at or above

the Proficient level was for public school

students at grade 8; the percentage in 1998

was higher than that in both 1994 and 1992.

8
School & Home Factors

Related to Reading Achievement

Do students’ reading habits in school and at home affect their reading proficiency? Is there a relationship between

students’ television viewing habits and their reading achievement? What kinds of teaching practices seem to enhance

students’ reading performance? NAEP collects information that can help researchers answer these questions.

This information may be especially useful. It may help educators discover, for example, that some of their own

established classroom activities are also practiced by their colleagues across the nation. It also can suggest different

approaches to help students become better readers, and provide a resource for parents to strengthen their children’s

at-home reading habits.

Daily Reading Habits

Research has found that children who read every day have the best chance of becoming

competent readers. Daily practice at reading in school and for homework may not

only increase fluency, but may also encourage both literacy habits and literary

appreciation. Although the amount of reading students do each day may vary

depending on a school’s instructional goals and student needs, most schools do

require their students to read on a daily basis.

Students in the NAEP 1998 reading assessment were asked about the number of pages they read daily in

school and for homework. The figures below present information about their responses.

10

Percentage of Students Reading

11 or More Pages Daily

Eighth and twelfth graders in 1998 were reading

more pages each day in school and for homework

than were eighth and twelfth graders in 1994.

The data show that the more students read each

day, the higher their scores were on the NAEP reading assessment.

100 150 200 250 300

4th

Grade

8th

Grade

12th

Grade

Reading Scale Score

Reading Scores by Number of

Pages Read Daily in 1998

5 or fewer pages

6 to 10 pages

11 or more pages

SOURCE: National Center for Education Statistics, National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP), Reading Assessment.

■

1992 1994 1998

◆ ◆ ◆

▲ ▲

■

■ ▲

4th grade

8th grade

12th grade

◆

▲

■

Reading and Writing

Most educators today agree that integrating reading and writing benefits the development of literacy.

Numerous studies have shown that reading development does not take place in isolation; children

develop simultaneously as readers, listeners, speakers, and writers. The NAEP reading assessment

recognized the importance of these interrelationships by asking students and teachers questions

about the ways in which reading and writing are combined in their classrooms.

Students in the NAEP 1998 reading assessment were asked how frequently in school they

were asked to write long answers to questions on tests

or assignments that involved reading. The figures

below provide information about their responses.

Reading Scores by Frequency of

Writing Long Answers to Questions

That Involved Reading in 1998

4th grade

8th grade

12th grade

◆

▲

■

The data show an increase since 1994 in the percentage of students at grades 4 and 8 who wrote long

answers to questions at least once a week.

Percentage of Students Writing Long

Answers to Questions That Involved

Reading at Least Once a Week

Never/Hardly Ever

Once/Twice a Year

Once/Twice a Month

At Least Once a Week

150 200 250 300

Reading Scale Score

The students who said they wrote long answers on a

weekly or monthly basis had higher scores than those

who said they did so twice a year or less.

4th

Grade

8th

Grade

12th

Grade

100

1992 1994

◆ ◆

▲ ▲

■ ■

◆

▲■

60

50

40

30

20

10

0

60

50

40

30

20

10

0

1998
11

Television Viewing

Television watching has been widely criticized for distracting children from their studies

and discouraging recreational reading. Numerous research findings provide support

for these concerns and underscore the negative relationship between TV viewing

and literacy development.

The NAEP reading assessment has long recognized the importance of monitoring the effects of television watching on students’ reading achievement.

Students in the assessment were asked how many hours of television they

watched each day. The figures below present information about their responses.

Percentage of Students Viewing

4 Hours or More of Television Daily

4th grade

8th grade

12th grade

◆

▲

■

The percentages generally decreased between 1994

and 1998, suggesting that students are watching

less television on a daily basis.

SOURCE: National Center for Education Statistics, National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP), Reading Assessment.

Discussing Studies at Home

The lessons students learn in school are reinforced when they have opportunities to share them

with caring family members. Research studies have documented the higher achievement of

students whose families have taken an active role in their learning. Recognizing this, recent

education reform efforts, such as Goals 2000, have sought to strengthen cooperation between

parents and schools.

The NAEP 1998 reading assessment sought to gauge the impact of parental involvement on

students’ reading achievement by asking students how often they discuss their studies with someone at home. The figures below present information about their responses.

4th

Grade

8th

Grade

12th

Grade

Reading Scale Score

Never/Hardly Ever

Once/Twice a Month

Once/Twice a Week

Almost Every Day

Students in all three grades who discussed studies at

home at least weekly had higher reading scores than

students who did so less frequently. At grades 8 and

12, students who did this almost every day had the

highest reading scores.

Reading Scores by Frequency of

Discussing Studies at Home in 1998

Any apparent changes over time in the frequency of

this activity were not significant.

Percentage of Students Discussing

Studies at Home Almost Every Day

100 150 200 250 300

4th

Grade

8th

Grade

12th

Grade

Students at all three grades who watched 3 hours

or less of television daily had higher reading scores

than students who watched 4 or more hours daily.

Reading Scores by Amount of

Television Viewing Daily in 1998

100 150 200 250 300

Reading Scale Score

6 hours or more

4 to 5 hours

2 to 3 hours

1 hour or less

4th grade

8th grade

12th grade

◆

▲

■

■

1992 1994 1998

◆ ◆ ◆

▲ ▲ ▲

■ ■

■

1992 1994 1998

◆ ◆

◆

▲ ▲

▲

■ ■

60

50

40

30

20

10

0

60

50

40

30

20

10

0
12

Figure A: Grade 4 Public School Students: 1998 NAEP Reading State Assessment

NATION 215

STATES

Alabama 211

Arizona 207

Arkansas 209

California✝ 202

Colorado 222

Connecticut 232

Delaware 212

Florida 207

Georgia 210

Hawaii 200

Iowa✝ 223

Kansas✝ 222

Kentucky 218

Louisiana 204

Maine 225

Maryland 215

Massachusetts✝ 225

Michigan 217

Minnesota✝ 222

Mississippi 204

Missouri 216

Montana✝ 226

Nevada 208

New Hampshire✝ 226

New Mexico 206

New York✝ 216

North Carolina 217

Oklahoma 220

Oregon 214

Rhode Island 218

South Carolina 210

Tennessee 212

Texas 217

Utah 215

Virginia 218

Washington 217

West Virginia 216

Wisconsin✝ 224

Wyoming 219

OTHER JURISDICTIONS

District of Columbia 182

DDESS 220

DoDDS 223

Virgin Islands 178

Below Basic Basic Proficient Advanced

AVERAGE

SCALE SCORE

ACHIEVEMENT LEVEL RESULTS

Percentage of Students at Each Achievement Level

90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 10 20 30 40

Percentage at or below Basic Percentage at or

above Proficient

32 19

31 17

32 19

28 16

31 35 27

7

22 32

24

43 32

18

26

72

35 33

18 5

19

30 36

46 31

14

28

45 31

55 28

28

35

23

30

29 37

16 3

37 34

28

52 29

22

37

29

27

39 32

23 5

36

28

27

37 35

31 33

52 30

37

29

25

30

17

48

31

38 33

18

38 34

36

24

34

39 33

22

25

35 33

45 33

23

33

25

42

34

18 4

37

38 34

20

18

24

74

34

23

6 2

37 34

24

47 32

15

27 36

37 34

31 23 6

5

5

4

7

3

8

8

5

3

7

6

6

8

7

8

8

3

5

8

4

7

4

5

6

5

5

7

5

5

5

23 6

28 6

4

20 5

35 11

24 6

24 6

33

38

35

39

44

47

45

52

35

28

38

36

23 6

Reading Performance Within States

While the average scores of students across the nation provide parents and educators with a broad view

of how well the nation’s students are performing in reading, it is also informative to examine the reading

performance of students within individual states. In 1998, the NAEP assessment was conducted, not

only at the national level, but also within states or other jurisdictions that volunteered to participate in

the state-level assessments at grades 4 and 8. The figures and tables in this section show the results from those assessments.

Fourth-Grade Reading Performance

Figure A below presents average reading scores for

public school fourth graders in each participating state or

jurisdiction in the 1998 reading assessment. The figure

also indicates achievement level results by showing the

percentages of students within each state who performed

at each of the achievement levels.

The table at the bottom of the page compares the average

score of each of the forty-three states or jurisdictions that

participated in the 1998 state assessment at grade 4 with

the national average score. Thirteen states or jurisdictions

had average scores that were above the national average,

15 were at or around the national average, and 15 were

below the national average.

NATION

STATES

Alabama

Arizona

Arkansas

California✝

Colorado

Connecticut

Delaware

Florida

Georgia

Hawaii

Iowa✝

Kansas✝

Kentucky

Louisiana

Maine

Maryland

Massachusetts✝

Michigan

Minnesota✝

Mississippi

Missouri

Montana✝

Nevada

New Hampshire✝

New Mexico

New York✝

North Carolina

Oklahoma

Oregon

Rhode Island

South Carolina

Tennessee

Texas

Utah

Virginia

Washington

West Virginia

Wisconsin✝

Wyoming

OTHER JURISDICTIONS

District of Columbia

DDESS

DoDDS

Virgin Islands

✝

Indicates jurisdiction did not meet one or more of the guidelines for school participation.

DDESS: Department of Defense Domestic Dependent Elementary and Secondary Schools; DoDDS: Department of Defense Dependents Schools

(Overseas). NOTE: Numbers may not add to 100, or to the exact percentages at or above achievement levels, due to rounding. National results are

based on the national sample, not on aggregated state assessment samples.

HOW TO READ FIGURES A AND B

Figures A and B present both types of results

from the NAEP reading assessment — scale

scores and acheivement levels — for public

school students in the states or jurisdictions that

participated in the 1998 NAEP state assessment.

For each of these figures, average scale

scores for each participating state or jurisdiction

are listed in the first column. These scores

represent the average for public school students

only. (Private school students are not included

in these results.) For comparison, the average

score for public school students across the

nation is provided at the top of this column.

The shaded bars that appear down the

center column of these figures provide

achievement level results for each participating

state or jurisdiction. The numbers within the

shaded bars show the percentage of students

who attained that level of performance. In both

figures, the bars are aligned at the cut point

between Basic and Proficient to make it easier

for comparing the percentage of students at or

above Proficient across all the participating

states or jurisdictions.

1998 NAEP Reading Comparison of State versus National

Average Reading Scores for Public Schools: Grade 4

Above the

National Average

At or around the

National Average

Below the

National Average

Colorado

Connecticut

DDESS

DoDDS

Iowa ✝

Kansas✝

Maine

Massachusetts✝

Minnesota✝

Montana✝

New Hampshire✝

Oklahoma

Wisconsin✝

Kentucky

Maryland

Michigan

Missouri

New York✝

North Carolina

Oregon

Rhode Island

Tennessee

Texas

Utah

Virginia

Alabama

Arizona

Arkansas

California✝

Delaware

District of Columbia

Florida

Georgia

Hawaii

Washington

West Virginia

Wyoming

Louisiana

Mississippi

Nevada

New Mexico

South Carolina

Virgin Islands

✝

Indicates jurisdiction did not meet one or more of the guidelines for school participation.

NOTE: Differences between states and jurisdictions may be partially explained by other factors not included in these tables.

SOURCE: National Center for Education Statistics, National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP), Reading Assessment.
13

Eighth-Grade Reading Performance

Figure B below presents average reading scores for

public school eighth graders in each participating state

or jurisdiction in the 1998 reading assessment. The

figure also indicates achievement level results by

showing the percentages of students within each state

who performed at each of the achievement levels.

The table at the bottom of the page compares the

average score of each of the forty states or jurisdictions

that participated in 1998 state assessment at grade 8

with the national average score. Fifteen states or

jurisdictions had average scores that were above the

national average, 11 were at or around the national

average, and 14 were below the national average.

NATION

STATES

Alabama

Arizona

Arkansas

California✝

Colorado

Connecticut

Delaware

Florida

Georgia

Hawaii

Kansas✝

Kentucky

Louisiana

Maine

Maryland✝

Massachusetts

Minnesota✝

Mississippi

Missouri

Montana✝

Nevada

New Mexico

New York✝

North Carolina

Oklahoma

Oregon

Rhode Island

South Carolina

Tennessee

Texas

Utah

Virginia

Washington

West Virginia

Wisconsin✝

Wyoming

OTHER JURISDICTIONS

District of Columbia

DDESS

DoDDS

Virgin Islands

ACHIEVEMENT LEVEL RESULTS

Percentage of Students at Each Achievement Level

Figure B: Grade 8 Public School Students: 1998 NAEP Reading State Assessment

AVERAGE

SCALE SCORE

Percentage at or

above Proficient

1998 NAEP Reading Comparison of State versus National

Average Reading Scores for Public Schools: Grade 8

Above the

National Average

At or around the

National Average

Below the

National Average

Connecticut

DDESS

DoDDS

Kansas✝

Maine

Massachusetts

Minnesota✝

Montana✝

New York✝

Oklahoma

Oregon

Utah

Virginia

Washington

Wisconsin✝

Arizona

Colorado

Kentucky

Maryland✝

Missouri

North Carolina

Rhode Island

Tennessee

Texas

West Virginia

Wyoming

Alabama

Arkansas

California✝

Delaware

District of Columbia

Florida

Georgia

Hawaii

Louisiana

Mississippi

Nevada

New Mexico

South Carolina

Virgin Islands

✝

Indicates jurisdiction did not meet one or more of the guidelines for school participation.

NOTE: Differences between states and jurisdictions may be partially explained by other factors not included in these tables.

SOURCE: National Center for Education Statistics, National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP), Reading Assessment.

✝

Indicates jurisdiction did not meet one or more of the guidelines for school participation.

DDESS: Department of Defense Domestic Dependent Elementary and Secondary Schools; DoDDS: Department of Defense Dependents Schools

(Overseas). NOTE: Numbers may not add to 100, or to the exact percentages at or above achievement levels, due to rounding. National results are

based on the national sample, not on aggregated state assessment samples.

34 45 20 1

27 45 26 2

32 45 22 1

36 42 21 1

24 46 28 2

18 40 38 4

34 41 23 2

56 32 11 1

22 41 31 6

20 44 3

35 42

33

22 1

32 43 1

40 41 18

19 46 33 2

26 45 27 2

36 17 46 1

16 38 42 4

28 41 27 4

20 44 33 3

19 44 35 2

39 42 18 1

24 47 28

17 45 36 2

45

32

24 2

51

29

20 28 1

22 31 45 2

26 44 2

43

28

35 1

29 45

21

25 1

24 48 1

23 46

27

2

60 30 9

22 45 30 3

23 45 30 2

26 47 26 1

21 46 31 2

24 47 27

22 44 2

30 46 23

31 45 23 1

Below Basic Basic Proficient Advanced

1

90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 10 20 30 40

NATION 261 28 41 28 2

STATES

Alabama 255

Arizona 261

Arkansas 256

California✝ 253

Colorado 264

Connecticut 272

Delaware 256

Florida 253

Georgia 257

Hawaii 250

Kansas✝ 268

Kentucky 262

Louisiana 252

Maine 273

Maryland✝ 262

Massachusetts 269

Minnesota✝ 267

Mississippi 251

Missouri 263

Montana✝ 270

Nevada 257

New Mexico 258

New York✝ 266

North Carolina 264

Oklahoma 265

Oregon 266

Rhode Island 262

South Carolina 255

Tennessee 259

Texas 262

Utah 265

Virginia 266

Washington 265

West Virginia 262

Wisconsin✝ 266

Wyoming 262

OTHER JURISDICTIONS

District of Columbia 236

DDESS 269

DoDDS 269

Virgin Islands 233

Percentage at or below Basic

24

1

29

2

1

1
14

1992 1994 1998

Nation 215 212 215+

States

Alabama 207 208 211

Arizona 209 206 207

Arkansas 211 209 209

California† 202 197 202

Colorado 217 213 222**++

Connecticut 222 222 232**++

Delaware 213 206 212++

Florida 208 205 207

Georgia 212 207 210

Hawaii 203 201 200

Iowa† 225 223 223

Kansas† -------- -------- 222

Kentucky 213 212 218*++

Louisiana 204 197 204++

Maine 227 228 225

Maryland 211 210 215+

Massachusetts† 226 223 225

Michigan 216 -------- 217

Minnesota† 221 218 222

Mississippi 199 202 204*

Missouri 220 217 216

Montana† -------- 222 226

Nevada -------- -------- 208

New Hampshire† 228 223 226

New Mexico 211 205 206

New York† 215 212 216

North Carolina 212 214 217**

Oklahoma 220 -------- 220

Oregon -------- -------- 214

Rhode Island 217 220 218

South Carolina 210 203 210++

Tennessee 212 213 212

Texas 213 212 217

Utah 220 217 215**

Virginia 221 213 218+

Washington -------- 213 217+

West Virginia 216 213 216

Wisconsin† 224 224 224

Wyoming 223 221 219*

Other Jurisdictions

District of Columbia 188 179 182**

DDESS -------- -------- 220

DoDDS -------- 218 223++

Virgin Islands 171 -------- 178*

Average scale score

** Indicates that the average scale score in 1998 was significantly different from that in 1992 using a multiple

comparison procedure based on all jurisdictions that participated both years. * Indicates that the average scale

score in 1998 was significantly different from that in 1992 if only one jurisdiction is being examined. ++

Indicates that the average scale score in 1998 was significantly different from that in 1994 using a multiple

comparison procedure based on 43 jurisdictions. + Indicates that the average scale score in 1998 was

significantly different from that in 1994 if only one jurisdiction or the nation is being examined.

------- Indicates jurisdiction did not participate. † Indicates jurisdiction did not meet one or more of the guidelines

for school participation. DDESS: Department of Defense Domestic Dependent Elementary and Secondary

Schools. DoDDS: Department of Defense Dependents Schools (Overseas). NOTE: National results are based

on the national assessment sample, not on aggregated state assessment samples. Differences between states and

jurisdictions may be partially explained by other factors not included in this table.

Average Grade 4 Reading Scores for the States for Public

Schools only: 1992, 1994, and 1998

DC DC

Comparison of State-Level Average Reading Scores

for Public School Fourth Graders: 1992, 1994, and 1998

The average reading score in 1998 is significantly higher from

that in 1992 or 1994.

The average reading score in 1998 is significantly lower from that

in 1992 or 1994.

DDESS

DoDDS

Virgin Islands

DDESS

DoDDS

Virgin Islands

1992-1998 1994-1998

The average reading score in 1998 does not significantly

differ from that in 1992 or 1994.

State did not participate in 1992, 1994, and/or 1998.

The tables and figures on these two pages offer a

snapshot of state level reading performance across

time. The 1998 NAEP reading assessment was the

third in which states or jurisdictions could participate

in a state-level assessment of reading at grade 4. Thus,

it is possible to observe changes over time in students’

reading performance by comparing the 1998 score to

the 1994 and 1992 scores in each state or jurisdiction.

Because 1998 was the first time a state level assessment

of reading was conducted at grade 8, it is not possible

to observe changes across time in the reading performance for eighth graders in each state.

State Level Trends

in Reading Scores

The table on the left shows the average

reading scores for public school

students in each state or jurisdiction

participating in the 1992, 1994, and

1998 state level reading assessments.

Significant differences since 1992 and/

or 1994 are indicated next to the 1998

score in the third column

Between 1992 and 1998, the

reading scores for fourth-grade public

school students went up in Colorado,

Connecticut, Kentucky, Mississippi,

North Carolina, and the Virgin

Islands. However, in Utah, Wyoming,

and the District of Columbia, the

reading score in 1998 was lower than it

was in 1992.

Between 1994 and 1998, the

reading scores for fourth-grade public

school students went up in Colorado,

Connecticut, Delaware, Kentucky,

Louisiana, Maryland, South Carolina,

Virginia, Washington, and Department of Defense overseas schools.

There were no significant declines in

scores between 1994 and 1998 for any

participating jurisdiction.

The maps shown below further

illustrate the changes in reading scores

for each state between 1992 and 1998

and between 1994 and 1998.

SOURCE: National Center for Education Statistics, National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP), Reading Assessment.
Percentage of Grade 4 Students at or above the Proficient Level

for Public Schools only: 1992, 1994, and 1998

1992 1994 1998

Nation 27 28 29

States

Alabama 20 23 24

Arizona 21 24 22

Arkansas 23 24 23

California † 19 18 20

Colorado 25 28 34**+

Connecticut 34 38 46**+

Delaware 24 23 25

Florida 21 23 23

Georgia 25 26 24

Hawaii 17 19 17

Iowa † 36 35 35

Kansas † ----- ----- 34

Kentucky 23 26 29*

Louisiana 15 15 19*+

Maine 36 41 36

Maryland 24 26 29*

Massachusetts † 36 36 37

Michigan 26 ----- 28

Minnesota † 31 33 36*

Mississippi 14 18 18*

Missouri 30 31 29

Montana † ----- 35 37

Nevada ----- ----- 21

New Hampshire † 38 36 38

New Mexico 23 21 22

New York † 27 27 29

North Carolina 25 30 28

Oklahoma 29 ----- 30

Oregon ----- ----- 28

Rhode Island 28 32 32

South Carolina 22 20 22

Tennessee 23 27 25

Texas 24 26 29

Utah 30 30 28

Virginia 31 26 30

Washington ----- 27 29

West Virginia 25 26 29

Wisconsin † 33 35 34

Wyoming 33 32 30

Other Jurisdictions

District of Columbia 10 8 10

DDESS ----- ----- 32

DoDDS ----- 28 34+

Virgin Islands 3 ----- 8**

Percentage of students at or above Proficient

* Indicates that the percentage in 1998 was significantly different from that in 1992 if only one jurisdiction is

being examined. ** Indicates that the percentage in 1998 was significantly different from that in 1992 using

a multiple comparison procedure based on 43 jurisdictions.+ Indicates that the percentage in 1998 was

significantly different from that in 1994 if only one jurisdiction is being examined. ------ Indicates jurisdiction did

not participate. † Indicates jurisdiction did not meet one or more of the guidelines for school participation.

DDESS: Department of Defense Domestic Dependent Elementary and Secondary Schools. DoDDS: Department

of Defense Dependents Schools (Overseas). NOTE: National results are based on the national assessment

sample, not on aggregated state assessment samples. Differences between states and jurisdictions may be

partially explained by other factors not included in this table.

State Level Trends

in Achievement

Level Performance

The table on the right shows the

percentage of fourth-grade public

school students who performed at or

above the Proficient achievement level

in 1992, 1994, and 1998. Significant

differences between 1992 and 1998 and

between 1994 and 1998 are indicated in

the third column.

Between 1992 and 1998, the

percentage of public school fourth

graders who reached or exceeded the

Proficient level increased in Colorado,

Connecticut, Kentucky, Louisiana,

Maryland, Minnesota, Mississippi, and

the Virgin Islands. There were no

significant decreases for any state or

jurisdiction.

Between 1994 and 1998, the

percentage of public school fourth

graders at or above Proficient increased

in Colorado, Connecticut, Louisiana,

and Department of Defense overseas

schools. There were no significant

decreases for any state or jurisdiction.

The maps shown below further

illustrate the changes in the percentage

of students in each state who performed at or above Proficient between

1992 and 1998 and between 1994 and

1998.

Comparison of State Level at or above Proficient for Public School

 Fourth Graders: 1992, 1994, and 1998

Percentage of students at or above the Proficient level in 1998 is

significantly higher from that in 1992 or 1994.

Percentage of students at or above the Proficient level in 1998 is

significantly lower from that in 1992 or 1994.

1992-1998 1994-1998

Percentage of students at or above the Proficient level in

1998 does not significantly differ from that in 1992 or 1994.

State did not participate in 1992, 1994, and/or 1998.

DC

15

SOURCE: National Center for Education Statistics, National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP), Reading Assessment.

DDESS

DoDDS

Virgin Islands

DDESS

DoDDS

Virgin Islands
United States Department of Education

National Center for Education Statistics

Washington, D.C. 20208-5653

Official Business Only

Penalty for Private Use, $300

Postage and Fees Paid

U.S. Department of

Education

Permit No. G-17

Standard Mail (A)

For additional information and a more complete report of the

findings of the 1998 NAEP reading assessment, please refer to

the NAEP 1998 Reading Report Card for the Nation and the

States. Additional reports are available from the 1998 and past

NAEP reading assessments. Please consult the information below

for ordering these and other resources about the assessment.

Reading Framework for the National Assessment of

Educational Progress: 1992-1998, National Assessment

Governing Board

NAEP 1998 Reading State Report Card( request specific state)

NAEP 1998 Reading Sample Questions and Student

Responses: Results from Public School Students in the

States and Nationwide (forthcoming)

Students Selecting Stories: The Effects of Choice in Reading

Assessment, Results from the NAEP Reader Special Study

of the 1994 National Assessment of Educational Progress

Listening to Children Read Aloud, Data from NAEP’s

For ordering information on these reports, write:

U.S. Department of Education ED Pubs,

P.O. Box 1398

Jessup, MD 20794-1398

or call toll-free 1-877-4 ED PUBS

NAEP reports are also available on the World Wide Web:

http://nces.ed.gov/naep

Other Publications and Related Materials

Integrated Reading Performance Record (IRPR) at

Grade 4 (Results from the 1992 IRPR, a special study conducted

with a subgroup of fourth graders who participated in the 1992

NAEP reading assessment)

NAEPfacts: Reading Proficiency and Home Support for

Literacy (A summary of findings related to home contexts for

reading achievement from the 1994 NAEP reading assessment)

NAEPfacts: Long-Term Trends in Student Reading Performance (A summary of findings from the 1996 NAEP long-term

trend reading assessment)

Interviewing Children about Their Literacy Experiences, Data

from NAEP’s Integrated Reading Performance Record (IRPR)

at Grade 4 (A special study conducted with a subgroup of fourth

graders who participated in the 1992 NAEP reading assessment)

NAEP READING

NATIONAL & STATE

Highlights

THE NAEP

1998 READING

REPORT CARD